Jump to content


Photo

Vision 3 500T 7219


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Frank Burgo

Frank Burgo

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Student
  • Australia

Posted 27 July 2008 - 03:41 AM

Ok, so I?m filming my graduate 16mm film soon and I'll have to order my stocks pretty soon...

Now correct me if I?m wrong. Underexposing film tends to make it more grainy, but since I?m shooting quite a bit of night exteriors, I?m planning to underexpose most of those shots by 2 stops so it?ll look dark, but a earlier film which I worked on shot bits on Vision 2 500T and it looked grainy, but than another film which I also worked on shot most of its film on Vision 2 200T, underexposing most of it by 2 stops and it looked fine. Now Vision 3 500T has recently come out, and I?ve hear that its really good, that it?s less grainy than the Vision 2 and can see better into the shadows as well. Now I?ve shot a test to test out just how well it can handle the dark but I don?t know if it?ll come back in time.

So anyways my questions are: Can someone who?s shot on Vision 3 500T tell me how good it actually is and what it?s like? And should I underexpose the shot or shoot it right than grade it down in post?

Also another thing, if I?m shooting in the evening, could I get away with shooting Tungsten film without an 85 filter? Or would it look too blue to be natural still?

And one more question, because of the unpredictable weather at the moment which ranges from clear skies to rain, would 200T be a good stock that could work either way?

thanks in advance
  • 0

#2 Tim Terner

Tim Terner
  • Sustaining Members
  • 340 posts
  • Producer
  • Prague, CZ

Posted 27 July 2008 - 04:02 AM

If you want a 2 stops underexposed look, expose at minus 1 and a third and then grade it down in post/transfer
  • 0

#3 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 27 July 2008 - 03:38 PM

What Tim said. I'd recommend the filter too or you'll get uneven exposure across color channels that could lead to colored "noise" in the highlights and or the shadows (called color-crossover) when you try to fix it electronically. It'll still work, and it'll give you more light onto the film, but remember that you're working with Red Green and Blue, not just white light. It'll work, but there's a reason that filter's there other than just as a feel-good security blanket ;)
  • 0

#4 Jon Rosenbloom

Jon Rosenbloom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 27 July 2008 - 08:45 PM

Underexposing film makes it grainy, IF you try to print it up. Is it too outlandish to suggest shooting a test? Remember, shooting is one thing, but what sort of telecine are you using? It's a big factor in the apparent "graininess" of your image.

If you're shooting in the evening, the sky gets very blue as you get towards dusk.
  • 0

#5 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 29 July 2008 - 01:06 PM

Why would you underexpose 500t 2 stops? That seems very, very risky to me. Something I would never do!.. unless I was push processing. Yes, you can 'under-light' people and things but that is not under-'exposing'.

I shoot predominately Super 16mm and never go faster than 200t.... I use Kodak 100t and 200t... and Fuji 120t Vivid. I prefer to push 200t one to one and a half stops than roll that grainy 500 stuff any day but that is just me. I prefer a 'cleaner' 35mm looking Image (unless the project calls for a very Grainy look, then of course, 500t or Tri-X etc.. is the way to go).

Be careful not to confuse under-lighting with under-exposing... you'll get vastly different results from each! The latter may leave you completely in the DARK.

I recommend the book Film Lighting by Malkiewicz.

Edited by David Rakoczy, 29 July 2008 - 01:08 PM.

  • 0

#6 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 30 July 2008 - 08:21 PM

Did I say Vivid 120t???? Sheeesh.. I meant Vivid 160t.... man, I gotta shoot more of that stuff!.. sorry Fuji!
  • 0

#7 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 30 July 2008 - 09:10 PM

David, out of curiosity, do you find the pushed 7217 holds up better than 7218 @ say 320? I recall when I shot the '18 w/o over exposure I was surprised at the grain (in HD as I had been used to SD for so long), but later on when exposing it @320 It was much better. Granted, I've never pushed the 200T (though I love shooting it with an 85@125).
  • 0

#8 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 31 July 2008 - 06:38 AM

David, out of curiosity, do you find the pushed 7217 holds up better than 7218 @ say 320? I recall when I shot the '18 w/o over exposure I was surprised at the grain (in HD as I had been used to SD for so long), but later on when exposing it @320 It was much better. Granted, I've never pushed the 200T (though I love shooting it with an 85@125).


Yes I do.. I generally over expose all S16mm stocks one full stop. That aside, when shooting some tests for Fotokem, I found that pushing 200t delivered a cleaner image than the 500. Now, it really depends what you are shooting. What you can get away with. I try my hardest to do all Night work on the 200t... if at all possible.. giving up the one stop over exposure first, using larger lights second, shooting a slower frame rate (if possible) third... and finally pushing if necessary.

S16 - Spirit - HDCam
  • 0

#9 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 31 July 2008 - 07:49 AM

cont'd

Shooting 7217 with an 85 rated at 120iso is a standard rating. I would rate that at 64. Usually the reason for the 85 is day exterior so I would go to 7201 rated at 25 or 32... or 7212 100t rated at 32. 7212 is a beautiful stock!!! So is Vivid 160! I really enjoy Lighting so I don't mind using larger units or having a ton of gear around a Subject.... I guess the $700 plus per roll savings of the S16 compared to 35 is worth the trade off.. for me anyway.
  • 0

#10 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 31 July 2008 - 08:30 AM

Thanks for the explanation. I'll have to give that a try, the pushing and the like whenever a budget affords me the chance, though personally I'm more comfortable with just 2/3 over. My big, "god thats a lot of grain," came on white walls everywhere. . .'course I should've known better, with less contrast in the scene an eye will search it out anywhere, al'la grain. . .
  • 0

#11 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 31 July 2008 - 09:04 AM

5219 is a totally different animal... but in S16 that is what I do. I really try to get a 35 image out of S16.. the best I can.

Money (here) is always a concern. It is difficult enough moving a client from video to Film to begin with.. so S16 is my chosen Format. Also, owning a SR2 helps!.. if I had to rent a Camera, Lights and Grip/ Dolly every Show, I would have to move to a larger city! No one here can (will) afford those expenses. I am five hours away from the nearest Rental Houses so we are looking at a Travel Day, Shoot Day and a Return Day.. Whoah.. way too much... esp. in 35. So I opted to purchase a S16 Package etc... Sure, I was presented with the RED (it was in development at that time).. but choose to stay with Film.

I really enjoyed my time in Hollywood and do miss working on the bigger shows. A couple of kids changed all that and so I went for 'quality of life' over the 'biz'... but am unwilling to surrender to the 1s and 0s.... as of yet. I am very thankful for all that Kodak and Fuji have done and continue to do. With today's Lenses and Transfer Equipment you can get gorgeous S16 Images.. and if the final product is going to TV.. it is just fine.. not 35 yes.. but to me.. way better than RED etc... not to mention my one time Camera purchase is just that.. a one time purchase. Done!

I think it also has to do with the workflow as well.. I love using Meters! It just isn't the same Lighting via a Monitor. One cable off the camera for the (B&W) video-tap is more than enough.. not having a 'video village' is extremely liberating! Plus, the excitement of not seeing final Image during acquisition keeps my blood flowing. Film is just plain awesome!... whether it be 8, 16 or 35 plus mm.

I hope the original poster orders and reads the recommended book prior to shooting... he will get a superior Image if that diligence is done!
  • 0

#12 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 31 July 2008 - 09:09 AM

Quite true. I love film so much, myself, and S16 especially, I plunged all the money I had into an SR3 which I'll never probably recoup an investment from; but hey, not why I bought it or got into film in the first place. I won't even be rich in this business, but so long as I can pay the bills, what do I care?

Film Lighting is a great book, I've poured over many times. Also look into "Cinematography" By Malkiewicz and our own David Mullen
  • 0

#13 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 31 July 2008 - 09:41 AM

Right On Adrian!!!!!! Couldn't agree more!!!

Blazing through 'Cinematography' as we speak.... I ordered it a couple weeks ago. Finding nuggets of great info in it! Film Lighting is a MUST for any beginning/ novice DP. I have not read it in a couple years and will sweep through it again soon! Love the running commentary!

I dropped $42k for my 'complete' SR2 Package. $35k in Lighting and Grip. $15k in Dollies and Track. $30k on a Final Cut Edit Suite.

What did you drop on your SR3 and what does it include... do you have a website with your list?
  • 0

#14 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 31 July 2008 - 09:45 AM

ooops.. your web link signature just appeared. Nice Site! Nice Equipment!!!!

I want to call you .. maybe later today if you don't mind.
  • 0

#15 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 31 July 2008 - 01:54 PM

Fuji Vivid 160T best stock that has been around for so many years .
  • 0

#16 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 31 July 2008 - 02:09 PM

Fuji Vivid 160T best stock that has been around for so many years .


You keep saying that John and I have taken you up on it! I have been a predominately Kodak guy forever and it has been quite a while since rolling Fuji. Called them up the other day.. got their info Packets and Demo Reel and ordered some S16.. Vivid 160T... I look forward to exposing it! I do find (some) of the latter Kodak Stocks deliver a 'video' type Image not to my liking. I do love 7212 and 7217.... but gonna roll the Vivid next Job (if I can)... being I am the Producer, Director/ Dp I'd say it has a pretty good shot ;)
  • 0

#17 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 31 July 2008 - 03:48 PM

David sorry to be a bore , but think you could be pleased.
  • 0

#18 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 31 July 2008 - 03:59 PM

David, sorry, i didn't get to your posts sooner. I'm assuming you were the 850 number? I don't normally answer #s I don't know (and my g/f just got back from vacation for a week so I was stuck with her).
I'll be around tomorrow, though, all day, so feel free to give me a ring. I got a great deal on my SR3 package from down in FLA (Ft. Lauderdale in fact) and I'd be happy to talk shop with you.

All the best,
~Adrian
  • 0

#19 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 31 July 2008 - 04:36 PM

David sorry to be a bore , but think you could be pleased.
[quote name='John Holland']


John, your posts are anything but boring! Thanks for persistently praising this Stock... I look forward to using it! The Folks at Fuji were great.. sent a test Roll... though the square Can is a twist.. guess you can put a round Spool into a square Can afterall...

___________

I don't normally answer #s I don't know - Adrian quote.

Adrian, that's ok.. I was just calling to see if you were available for three weeks in Maui with your SR3 but did not hear from you so I booked someone else.. me! Just kidding. Will call you tomorrow. Yes, I am 850...

___________

I am curious why the original Poster has dropped out.. not asked any follow up questions.. or answered mine.. hope they are ok (?)

Edited by David Rakoczy, 31 July 2008 - 04:40 PM.

  • 0

#20 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 31 July 2008 - 04:55 PM

Maybe they went out and bought a red? :lol:

Ahh, Maui, but it's an odd joke, I just passed up a 35 gig (paying!) to do an SR3 gig for free. . . damned pain of "morals!"
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Opal

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Visual Products

Tai Audio

CineLab

Abel Cine

The Slider

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineTape

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post